Candidate Evaluation Form Instructions
EXPLANATION OF CRITERIA:
1. Potential for Completing Dissertation.
This criterion is, obviously, to be used for candidates who are finished with their course work, but who have not finished their dissertation (i.e., who are ABD). Elements to be considered here include the topic, the methodology, the chairperson (e.g., do people tend to finish or not under this chairperson), and the candidate's motivation and enthusiasm for the project.
2. Research Publication Record.
This criterion is applicable to ABD's and more advanced candidates. However, what is excellent for an ABD would not be excellent for an advanced assistant professor. The quantity of publications, the placement of the publications, and the topics should all be considered.
3. Future Research Publication Potential.
This criterion is intended to evaluate the likelihood that the candidate will be a productive researcher in the future, after being hired at KSU.
4. Research Interest "Fit" with the Department.
The issue to be considered in this item is whether the research interest of the candidate is supported by or in contrast to the research thrusts within the Department. Is there a likelihood of collaborative research?
5. Teaching Skills.
If teaching evaluations are available, they would provide a good indication for this criterion. Otherwise, this is a subjective judgment of how well this person would do in the classroom. Included would be clarity of language, communication skills, and personality.
6. Teaching Experience.
This is scored on the basis of the variety of relevant courses previously taught by this candidate.
7. "Fit" of Teaching Interests with the Department's Needs
Many candidates have the ability to teach almost any undergraduate and most graduate classes. The issue here is how well their preferred areas of teaching match the needs of the Department.
This is a broad, subjective criterion meant to measure how professional the candidate is including, but not limited to, appearance, dress, personality, and communication skills.
9. Relevant Business Experience
In general, given that our Faculty are teaching Marketing to business students, it is useful for a candidate to have relevant business experience. This item recognizes the importance of such experience and is concerned with the degree to which the person possesses it.
10. Quality of Training/Program/School.
This measure is meant to capture the combination of the candidate's training (what courses were taken? from whom?), the program (what major? what minor?), and the general reputation of the school granting the degree. A candidate from a good school might score poorly here because of the particular courses taken or the professors who taught the courses. A candidate from a mediocre school might score well here due to outstanding course selection or excellent mentoring.
Is there evidence that the candidate has the interest, motivation, and initiative to capitalize on his/her training to be a "go getter" in teaching, research, and service.
Can this person adapt to changes in courses to be taught, schedule changes, and changes in research direction which occasionally are necessary?
13. Personality "Fit" with the Department.
We must view any candidate we hire as though we are going to spend the next twenty years with that person. The question here is whether this person would be a good "family member" of the Department. There is a difference between someone who is aggressive and someone who is abrasive.
14. Likelihood of KSU getting this Candidate.
Does it appear that this candidate has a real interest in KSU? Is there some special reason (family, geography, colleagues) that the candidate has for interviewing with us? Or is KSU a "fall back" position?
15. Overall Evaluation of this Candidate.
The sum of the parts may be greater or less than the whole. This reflects your overall judgment of this candidate for our Department.
SEE SAMPLE FORM ON NEXT PAGE